User talk:Xexerss

Define "Unnecessary"

Even the Student Council Has Its Holes!

You have reverted a detail on this article for Komaro-chan meant to describe a character's visual traits, with the only justification being "its unnecessary", even though it is an accurate descriptor. On the contrary, claiming it being "unnecessary" does not make it inaccurate, especially when describing a very noticeable visual detail of a main character of the series that gets regularly emphasized. Wikipedia is for all information in the end.

So please, do define what "unnecessary" is to mention her contrasting traits? Samalik16 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Samalik16: Character descriptions should be concise and free of superfluous information. Describing the size of a character's breasts as "overly mature for her age" adds no encyclopedic value. No, Wikipedia is not "for all information in the end". And one more thing: saying that a video is "viral" based on your own assessment and citing that same video (primary source) is WP:ORIGINAL. You've been doing this for a while now, and you've received more warnings since the last time I went to your talk page. If you keep doing the same thing, I'm going to take this to WP:ANI. Xexerss (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

"Character descriptions should be concise and free of superfluous information"

And where is such rule? She's small, has a large chest and sleepy eyes and a long amber ponytail. In the context of tropes known to anime, how is this "superfluous" to mention what would be a kyonyuu (oppai) loli but mentioning that Otori looks like a girl or "otoko no ko" isn't? it's not like this is a series devoid of "pink" content, as the linked previews are clearly showing.

"You've been doing this for a while now, and you've received more warnings since the last time I went to your talk page."

I'll admit back in april I got a little heated over the topic of console generations because it's not lining up with what people understand them as, but the last one was over trying to prevent an article from being sabotaged by removing relevant information by someone who kept giving personal attacks to myself and even industry tier professionals, which I also got angry over because Wikipedia did nothing about his behavior until recently. Your own page says its best to assume good faith, but I'm not seeing that off the jump right now. Samalik16 (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS-AM, character sections should consist of brief character outlines. Saying that a character looks small or that another character looks feminine are sufficient to provide concise descriptions of their appearances. Focusing on the fact that a character has large breasts ("overly mature for her age") is completely irrelevant and not what you'd expect in an encyclopedia; you won't even see that kind of statement in an article about a model or adult film actress. I've seen enough of your edits, which often include original research, unnecessary sentences, and so on, despite the warnings you've been given, so you can't expect me to continue to view your contributions in good faith; don't expect my patience to be unlimited. Xexerss (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Per wikipedia's rules on assuming Bad Faith, and the way they are describing it, in my humble opinion, you're stepping into that similar behavior and I think you need to calm down.

Btw, if mentioning a man looks like a girl suffices, what about replacing "small" with "kyonyuu loli" or the more (lazily used) "oppai loli" then? Because if the shoe fits, why not wear it? Because as I repeat, this series isn't gonna run away from pink humor or scenarios. Samalik16 (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Samalik16: How about you start tailoring your edits to the suggestions that other editors have been making to you for a while now, instead of continuing to act as if everyone else is to blame for not letting you do whatever you want here? Wikipedia isn't meant to be understood only by a select group of anime and manga fans (WP:AUDIENCE), so don't assume that every reader would know what "kyonyuu loli" or "oppai loli" mean. I still don't get why describing the size of a specific attribute of a fictional character is so important to you. Xexerss (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

"How about you start tailoring your edits to the suggestions that other editors have been making to you for a while now, instead of continuing to act as if everyone else is to blame for not letting you do whatever you want here"

Actually if I make a mistake then by all means correct it. Wikipedia first motto is "be bold", and quite frankly I'm not even trying to sabotage or destroy wikipedia, I'm just some moronic casual editor who sometimes makes mistakes but tries to contribute the best I can with what i understand. So you coming and openly admitting to bad faith towards me when I'm trying to act in good faith is kinda hurtful tbh. Seriously, calm down. Please.

Wikipedia isn't meant to be understood only by a select group of anime and manga fans (WP:AUDIENCE), so don't assume that every reader would know what "kyonyuu loli" or "oppai loli" mean.

Wikipedia also says content should not be excluded simply because it's niche. Otherwise we'd have to remove lots of anime tropes from articles if not the entire article on lolicon. Equally so, the average normie(?) user on the internet are already familiar with the concept of an "loli with a big chest" even outside of anime circles, so i dunno why it begs treating it like it's rocket science that is too complex for the average reader. Samalik16 (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Samalik16 I didn't say outright that I sense bad faith in your edits, but I do see that you haven't noticeably changed your editing habits and, in fact, have continued to receive warnings because of them, so even if that's not your intention, you're still being disruptive. It's one thing to have articles about certain concepts and topics, but it's quite another to use those terms as if they were everyday language and assume that everyone is familiar with them. I'm skeptical that the average 8-year-old boy, 60-year-old woman, or 50-something construction worker would know what "kyonyuu loli" or "oppai loli" means, or even the word "loli" (as used in anime and manga fandom); see MOS:JARGON. That's the problem: don't assume that Wikipedia is read only by regular internet users or "average normies"; be conscious of your own demographic biases. Xexerss (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say outright that I sense bad faith in your edits

Oh no, don't start weaseling out now after what you just told me in this conversation: "so you can't expect me to continue to view your contributions in good faith". Like, c'mon... there's no other way to interpret this.

but I do see that you haven't noticeably changed your editing habits and, in fact, have continued to receive warnings because of them, so even if that's not your intention, you're still being disruptive

Excuse me? the last warning was on the basis of trying to stop someone else from being disruptive because Wikipedia didn't do anything about his behavior, which I repeat, also included personal attacks on others and a refusal to come to a consensus through twisting words.The context surrounding a warning doesn't stop at the stop sign. it may not have been the cleanest method and maybe a bit too bold, but at least the editor/admin who warned me, who's a teacher btw, actually did try helping me improve the article in question by telling me what was wrong with it in said articles' talk page and I greatly appreciated that he helped me instead of saying I was wrong or something.

I'm skeptical that the average 8-year-old boy, 60-year-old woman, or 50-something construction worker would know what "kyonyuu loli" or "oppai loli" means, or even the word "loli" (as used in anime and manga fandom)

Ok this is a ridiculous argument.

First off, what 8 year old boy is going to openly search for an ecchi comedy manga when they're more occupied with junk food on TikTok or fortnite? By this very argument, most concepts on Wikipedia would have to be wiped because it's not in the vocabulary of a 3rd grader.

Second off, most people in their 50s+ don't even know what gamer terms are out there. Should articles like Boomer Shooter, Metroidvania or Souls-like also be removed for that reason because a good chunk of the those old people don't play games, or those that play games aren't the mainstream gamer in front of their Candy Crush dailies? No they shouldn't be removed, because gamers still use these terms. Using subcultural terms is not the same as "jargon". its a small phrase meant to quickly define something known in said subculture.

Additionally, the article for lolicon already exists. So claiming that "people won't get it" is looking at it from a perspective of someone who isn't the most interested in the topics of anime or otaku media to begin with, which defeats the point. In the end, only enthusiasts of the medium, either established or aspiring, are keeping a close eye on these articles if not using them as recommendations. Especially enthusiasts of ecchi or "hentai", who are going to take the most interest in this series specifically, if the promos are already a dead giveaway of who the target audience is. The average anime watcher already knows what these terms mean, especially oppai loli which was really popular 10+ years ago, no thanks to characters like Ilulu from Dragon Maid or Hestia from Danmachi, who herself was referred to as a kyonyuu loli in the book she comes from.

Komaro-chan herself is, creatively-speaking, trying to play into the kyonyuu loli trope. That much is very obvious to the target audience. Samalik16 (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Samalik16: Interpret my words however you like; your edits are still disruptive, you keep getting warnings, and you keep editing and interpreting things however you please. I'm saying that we should avoid using terms in character descriptions that most readers won't understand, so they don't have to look up other articles or visit other sites to figure out what they mean, and we should also use language that, ideally, everyone can understand without resorting to specific terminology unless it's necessary. If you hang out with people who regularly consume manga and anime, you might think that EVERYONE is familiar with the terms used in these works, but that’s not the case, and you shouldn’t assume that only a certain type of audience will read a particular kind of article based on your own assumptions. Wikipedia articles MUST be written for the broadest possible audience and not just for certain groups; it seems like you didn't even read the guideline I shared with you. What I find ridiculous is that you're making such a big deal out of the fact that I told you we should not use unnecessary descriptions for fictional characters, like saying that one of them has big breasts, as if the reader were going to miss out on crucial information just because they don't know this fact. Xexerss (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Samalik16 When articles use specific terminology, it is customary to include a wikilink, assuming that a reader may not be familiar with a particular term. I don't see any articles titled "kyonyuu loli" or "oppai loli"; even though I've been familiar with the world of anime and manga for years, this is the first time I've heard of them. Xexerss (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Wait, what? You never heard of an oppai loli is?!?! This is, like, old terminology, especially in anime and manga that is rich in moe' appeal!

At this point it begs the question what was the point in all of this arguing when you could have came out and said this. Would have moved things faster.

Kyonyuu loli (ロリ巨乳, rori kyonyū) is the domestic usage for an oppai loli, which is still in usage today by older fans, although kyonyuu loli is sometimes used in place of oppai loli.. Once again, Danmachi uses this to describe Hestia's bodytype. Samalik16 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Samalik16: Okay, so do you have at least one authoritative source that explicitly and literally states that the character in the series is "playing into the kyonyuu loli trope"? I'm talking about factual, verifiable information. At least in Hestia’s case, it seems the author has explicitly admitted it. Xexerss (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so do you have at least one authoritative source that explicitly and literally states that the character in the series is "playing into the kyonyuu loli trope"?

lets see here, a blog, a news article on the announcement and a bunny figure for merch.

The blog congratulating the manga on winning the 2023 Next Manga Award and the news article on the announcement of the anime refer to Komaro as a "loli kyonyuu" (ロリ巨乳). And if you can't find it, revert to original language and use F3, because google likes to be censorious of lolicon related terms, the search engine made all the more hellish.

The FuRyu branded figure refers to her with "kogara" (小柄) which is in reference to her smaller stature, while also emphasizing her chest (巨乳) as something that is normally hidden under her shirt as a selling point.

Regardless of how you slice it, she is not just known as "Small". Her breast size is also treated as a key trait of her appearance, with her already being well understood to be a "kyonyuu loli" in japan.

just to add a little extra I suppose, on the kodansha IP site, she's referred to as a 小っちゃな捨て猫庶務 or "a small stray cat secretary".... or PR I suppose.... all while the cover of said volume emphasizes her breasts as she piggybacks like a kid on Ume's shoulders. Samalik16 (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I asked you for authoritative sources. Personal blogs are user-generated sources and do not qualify as sources that warrant the use of a particular term in an article. Xexerss (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way, I very much doubt that a term that was added to Wiktionary less than a month ago by an IP user, and that contains no citations, constitutes any evidence to support the claim that it is a widely used term. Xexerss (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, here's a KnowYourMeme page that includes a brief breakdown of "oppai loli" dating back to 10 years, showing the etymology was used as far back. KnowYourMeme, as the name implies, is all about memeology, both in the literal and internet sense.

Additionally, here's a MAL forum page about Hestia using the term as well as the usage of it from StackExchange.

My point here is that the usage of the term is real and repetitively shown, regardless of when the term was made on the ever forgotten Wiktionary. So no, it's not a made up term, if that's where you were going. Samalik16 (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the existence of the term; I'm questioning whether the term would be used in everyday language outside the world of anime and manga (more specific, lolicon enthusiasts), and how easy it would be for someone unfamiliar with it to understand. Apparently, it's common among lolicon connoisseurs, who, I'm pretty sure, don't represent a significant percentage of Wikipedia's regular readers. I insist: you should stop assuming that only hardcore otaku will read the article and that we can therefore use specialized terms without considering the general readership. Wikipedia isn't meant for that. There are sites like Fandom where you can edit and include more precise jargon without expecting readers to understand what’s being talked about and having to look elsewhere for definitions. Xexerss (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Samalik16: Komaro-chan herself is, creatively-speaking, trying to play into the kyonyuu loli trope. Where are you getting this from? Do you see how you bring up terms and concepts that aren't explicitly associated or supported with the work anywhere? In other words, you continue to engage in original research, but you're surprised that I don't look favorably on your edits... Xexerss (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you see how you bring up terms and concepts that aren't explicitly associated or supported with the work anywhere? In other words, you continue to engage in original research, but you're surprised that I don't look favorably on your edits...

Somehow using the art in the citations for Komaro's bodytype and I'm not allowed to say she's a kyonyuu loli?

Let me break down the etymology of ロリ巨乳 just so we're on the same page

Kyon = 巨 = Large

Nyuu = 乳 = Milk (referred in this context as a woman's chest)

loli = ロリ = "loli", which is reserved for characters who are on the short side with moe' appeal. Komaro herself is around 130cm tall which is around the height of a 9 year old apparently.

Compound it all together and you get the trope that reads "kyonyuu loli" (ロリ巨乳). It takes no personal interpretation to see big breasts on a small girl. That's meeting things as matter of fact.

Additionally, the term has also been used before for gravure idols who are on the smaller side, even if they show strong maternal development in other areas, although the entomology could go even further with more in depth research.

You can have criticisms over my editing style, but don't assume bad faith by pointing at me like wikipedia is somehow my playground like you did earlier. If someone assumed such with you, wouldn't take that very well either. the least you could have done was just give a "my bad" for the nasty attitude and this topic would have already been put to rest while we work out the other stuff. I don't treat wikipedia like its a job of mine, and a majority of the 1000+ edits I have made are of topics I believe myself to have some baseline competence in trying to improve or polish, with some mistakes here and there in the past 5 years. I'm only human. Samalik16 (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Somehow using the art in the citations for Komaro's bodytype and I'm not allowed to say she's a kyonyuu loli? I'm asking you for a reliable source (not personal blogs) that provide evidence that the author has explicitly described the character using those terms. I'm not asking for your views on the character's design, such as saying, "this character is short and busty, so the author is clearly playing with the 'kyonyuu loli' trope"; that's not a source. And I didn't ask you for a breakdown of a term to justify its use in the article, either. It seems there's no way to make you understand that writing a description like, "She is a kyonyuu loli", and expecting any reader to understand it, is simply absurd. I don't know why including this piece of information is so important to you or why you think a reader would miss something important by not having it mentioned in the article. Xexerss (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not asking for your views on the character's design, such as saying, "this character is short and busty, so the author is clearly playing with the 'kyonyuu loli' trope"

Then let's go with short and busty. Don't look at me when you're the one who wanted to overcomplicate such a simple eye-catching trait that the average reader would be able to pick up on their own through checking the citation. Two, single word, details about a character's appearance isn't too much for a Wikipedia character description. it's the furthest thing from a novel, practically the length of a free account's x-tweet. I was using plain english when I first made that edit, but clearly as you can see, people keep bringing up her chest size. So yes, the reader would have missed a key trait in her visuals and would have to check the citation to see what she actually looks like.

I don't know why including this piece of information is so important to you

Honestly, this is my line. I don't know why you wanna overcomplicate adding a second word or small phrase to her bio, that is still an accurate descriptor, and keep it off the article via excessive pedantism and reinterpreting the rules of wikipedia, specifically WP:MOS-AM in regards to character descriptions. These are highschool character designs. They are oftenly extremely simple, so any oddities often stand out. It's extremely difficult to overcomplicate such designs in a slice of life.

It really begs the question, if it doesn't matter all that much to you, why keep it off? Because no reader, besides the puritan few, is gonna be blindsided by the inclusion of "mature chest" or "busty", nor is any admin going to look at the existing citations and say "she has no chest, therefore 'big breasted' should be removed", especially when everyone keeps pointing at her... other... size when talking about her character.

I'm asking you for a reliable source (not personal blogs) that provide evidence that the author has explicitly described the character using those terms

Toys People is not a "personal blog", it's a news site for hobbyists. You could probably think of them like what SiliconEra for gaming, but in their case, for taiwanese covering the world of japanese hobbies, who has been in the publication business for 15 years. They referred to Komaro as a "kyonyuu" and "kogara" when covering her figure.

Equally so for Honcierge. Don't let the basic web design fool you. Much of the japanese web hasn't exited the 2000s look, even for business. This website, owned by EightLinks Co ltd which in itself is owned by Shogakukan, differs in that it's focused on the curation of books to recommend, as in the entire medium from novels to manga. The website itself also operates off of editorial rather than open usage. Again, not a personal blog or "user generated content" but a professionally managed outlet. As a reminder, Honcierge refered to Komako as a ロリ巨乳 in their announcement of the anime. In a similar fashion of a mecha series that never calls itself mecha, it's up to the people who literate enough to point out that its mecha.

There are sites like Fandom where you can edit and include more precise jargon without expecting readers to understand what’s being talked about and having to look elsewhere for definitions.

And if I add "loli kyonyuu" to Wiktionary and wikilinked the trope under her name? Because I've already shown that its a term still in use, of which I forgot to add to the gravure books also using the term because it was 5am, but will do so right here. A more rich Fanza alternative to the DMM page exists with a mix of gravure and eromanga, but access via a VPN or modifications to cookies may be required to view it. Point being books have already been published using the term as their selling point and the term has been used for her as you can already see. (Now that I think about it, this directly contradicts what you said earlier about models and actresses, where in japan, emphasizing traits like those is a selling point) Samalik16 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Samalik16: I added that she has a "large-chested build", which I think sounds less colloquial than saying that she has "an overly mature chest size for her age" and much easier to understand than saying she is a "kyonyuu loli". I hope this will bring this discussion to a close and that you'll stop replying to me with endless paragraphs on the subject. Xexerss (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

i don't think I should interfere but I do agree that "describing chest sizes" should be basic common sense that it is inappropriate and unprofessional. Nobody can say a character has been sexualized based on their own opinion. Citing facts and proper sources should be a case of concern. Visual builds should not be sexualized or opinion based. HelloNS (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Heavenly Delusion

Since Heavenly Delusion finished its initial objective, I expanded a bit the plot section from the manga article. Could you revise the prose? Cheers Tintor2 (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

(Serial Experiments Lain) Placement of "//signal." game in the infobox

Hi. I was the person that removed all the information about "//signal." from the Serial Experiments Lain article. A change you reverted.

I agree that Anime News Network and Famitsu are reputable news sources. And I was wrong to remove the content outright without consultation.

But I still have concerns regarding the placement and the framing of the game in the artcle. Currently //signal. sits in the infobox along side the 1998 playstation game, and "The Nightmare of Fabrication." Both of these are official media issued by the Serial Experiments Lain's rights holders.

//signal is NOT that. It is a third-party doujin work. A fan made game. It is compliant under lainTTL, a set of guidelines for derivative works based on Lain. That is what "officially authorized" means in this context.

Readers may mistake //signal. as an officially liscensed Serial Experiments Lain product. Again, this is NOT the case.

My proposals are the following:

1. Remove the //signal. module from the infobox.

2. Create a new "Derivative works" section in the article, and move the paragraph about //signal. in the "Video games" section to there.

Thanks. Neglectedtea (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Neglectedtea: I understand your point, but perhaps you should start a discussion on the talk page for the series article to reach a consensus with other editors. Personally, I don't think it's necessary to create a separate section just to mentions this video game, and the same section already states that it is an officially authorized video game (as reported by sources) and outlines the legal circumstances that led to its release (namely, NBCUniversal Entertainment's guidelines in effect through 2028). These situations don't happen often, and as far as I know, there doesn't seem to be any coverage from reliable sources regarding other authorized IP products under this guideline that have been released during the period this applies. If that were the case, it might warrant a section covering the video game and more notable products released during this period, but for just one, I insist that I don't think it's necessary. In any case, I would understand if the infobox entry were removed given that it isn't strictly "official". Xexerss (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I feel that the words "officially authorized" is quite misleading. It's just a fan work that meets the guidelines for fan works set out by the rights holders.

But anyways, I will take your advice and make a talk page on the article.

Thanks. Neglectedtea (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2026 Backlog drive

September 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2026, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin at a particularly important time for NPP. The backlog has now passed 30,000 unreviewed articles, a level that has been described in current NPP discussions as exceptionally high and potentially difficult to overcome through normal reviewing alone. Backlog drives are one of the few measures that have historically produced a noticeable reduction in the backlog, so the participation of as many active patrollers as possible will matter this month. If you can review during September, please make articles your priority. Every article that is reviewed is a meaningful reduction in the backlog. With the queue at its current size, even a relatively small increase in the number of articles each patroller reviews can add up to a substantial difference over the course of the month. This is a hybrid drive, so redirect reviewing is still included. Redirects can be a useful way for newer patrollers to get comfortable with NPP and can help people build up to reviewing articles. However, the main goal of this drive is to tackle the article backlog, and experienced patrollers are particularly encouraged to spend as much of their available reviewing time on articles as they can. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. If you have been thinking about doing more NPP, this is an especially good month to jump in. Whether you can review a few pages or hundreds, every review helps. And if you are already an active patroller, please consider whether you can put in some additional time during September to help bring the backlog back under control. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Thank you for creating amazing anime pages! Maleniathebladeofmiquela (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

The Fullmetal Alchemist franchise

Good morning. I briefly checked your history, so I assume you're a devoted anime fan. I'm only a fan of FMA, mainly the 2003 anime since the original source material and second anime adaptation is way too overrated and overhyped. I just want to clarify that since I know you're a regular editor (and therefore protector) of manga/anime-related articles, I have plans in the future to edit the 2003 anime-related articles just by a little bit, if not more, mainly the 2003 episode article, as well as the 2003 section of Edward and Alphonse articles. As you can see, I've already edited the 2003 sections of the Roy Mustang, Winry Rockbell, and Scar articles by expanding the information regarding their characterization and role because of the heavy omission. I'm only writing all this just in case you encounter me in the future editing these articles more and more so this way there is no misunderstanding between the two of us and anyone else as well. Even though the 2003 anime is not the original source material, I also want to make sure that it's not omitted in every FMA character article either, including the mainline character article and the mainline 2003 anime article as well. Thenostalgiaman (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@Thenostalgiaman: Hi. If you're here as a sort of preventive measure, there's no need for that. As long as you can contribute constructively, citing reliable sources that allow others to verify the content you add to the articles, I don't see why there would be any conflict between us. Just a quick note: if you include content that comes from the work itself (the primary source), such as the plot or character descriptions, or episode summaries, you don't need to cite sources; however, if you're including analysis, commentary, or similar, you do need to cite secondary sources. You can check WP:A&M/ORS to see which type of sources are appropriate and which are not. Xexerss (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Regarding removed date proofing on death note.

Although you may think this source is Non-verifiable but it was clearly stated by officials . Please refer to pinned comment of link. I will not make any other changes on Death Note page regarding this topic but if you think this source is verifiable , please be my guest to edit the page!

Sincerely

HelloNS (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

This was regarding removal of date proofing. As I am a beginner, I really don't know much about wikipedia's standards and I seek to improve my edits' quality by learning and gaining Experience over time. But I believe that it is important to date proof data for the future.

Sincerely HelloNS (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@HelloNS Hi. I can't watch the videos from that account from my location. In any case, in addition to reverting your edit for the reasons I explained on your talk page (external links in the body of the article and use of ordinals in dates), we usually simply list the companies that have licensed the series in English-speaking markets, without going into detail about when the first and last episodes were released. Broadcast dates for terrestrial channels are sometimes mentioned when there are sources that allow that information to be verified, but this is never done for streaming services. Xexerss (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@HelloNS On second thought, since the source mentions that each episode would be released daily, I included that information in the article. Xexerss (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for revising the article by taking my consideration and correcting my mistake.

Sincerely HelloNS (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I need your help

Hi @Xexerss if you have a time you to check out on List of The Garden of Sinners characters? because i completely finished to add sources and i want you to edit some minor errors of this article if you can additionally to the edit the plots of movie franchise Venom5122 (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Updates and more

@Xexerss: since you have recently reverted one contribution I made with Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt, here is a suggestion that I think you would like to help out with: Draft:Gaga (company).
Reason: I have put a lot of effort into noting all the anime production and distribution covered from this company, but you can change a little bit of promotional text that can't follow wisdom. Happy editing! --~2026-47089-17 (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Cyberpunk: Edgerunners

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cyberpunk: Edgerunners, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A unsupported parameter error. References show this error when you use a parameter name that does not exist. Please replace the parameter with one that the template supports, or remove it if no such parameter exists. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • Tan, Melvyn (September 12, 2022). "Cyberpunk: Edgerunners Ending Song Gets Ilya Kuvshinov-directed Music Video". Anime Trending. Retrieved September 24, 2026. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); Unknown parameter |https://web.archive.org/web/20231108130508/https://anitrendz.net/news/2022/09/12/cyberpunk-edgerunners-ending-song-gets-ilya-kuvshinov-directed-music-video/url-status= ignored (help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Akira template

This year I made articles fo the two most famous characters from the manga and film Akira: Shotaro Kaneda and Tetsuo Shima. While I don't believe a character list is worth based on the short length of the manga, I wonder if the navigation template could an extra part that separates the characters from the media. Could you give it a look? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Fairy Tail (TV series) What is the reason for reverting everything, including the logo?

What is the reason for reverting everything, including the logo? Dontknowsalf (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dontknowsalf When your recent edits were reverted for the reasons explained, the previous one (the one involving the logo) was also reverted unintentionally. I have nothing to say about that, so feel free to put it back if you wish, but please don't do the rest again. Xexerss (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Understood. Since the logo was based on the Japanese website, I will leave the rest as is. Thank you. Dontknowsalf (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

New cross-language page link: The Summer You Were There

A new page Áng phù du mùa hạ on the Vietnamese Wikipedia has been linked to page The Summer You Were There, which you created, via Wikidata (Q106093831).

You will not be notified in the future about new articles linked to any of the articles you have created, if you wish to opt-in to receiving these notifications, please follow the opt-in instructions.

NervousBot (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

How can I add that 6 year old boy saved by Doraemon educational episode.

please help me, I am new to Wikipedia and I want to add this article as neutral as possible but I want to add this at any cost and I respect Wikipedia guidelines. KarthikSai1969 (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@KarthikSai1969: I made some copyedits and added it back to the article. By the way, you don't need to leave spaces between the references: "</ref><ref>", not "</ref> <ref>" It is enough to simply describe the event, sticking strictly to what the sources say; there is no need to include sentences such as "this incident reflects the educational impact of the anime." Xexerss (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Sir, You made my day. KarthikSai1969 (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Spy x family

I don't know if you are interested but I recently expanded the creation section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_%C3%97_Family . If possible could you revise the prose Tintor2 (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

By the way, I rearranged Darker than Black to look like Arslan since it primarily focuses on the first tv series rather than a franchise. Feel free to revise it. Tintor2 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Initial D

I realize it was a small edit but mountain passes are also well know in the drift world as Touge and even referenced as that in the anime I was just wondering if there was another reason you changed it Tojiwara.Tofu86 (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@Tojiwara.Tofu86 That term isn't used anywhere in the article, so its omission doesn't affect the reader's understanding of the content (besides, parentheses aren't placed right next to words without a space). Xexerss (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

oh ok thank you for responding and clearing that up for me Tojiwara.Tofu86 (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

List of Bleach episodes

In regards to the edits involving NP2293 last month, my own reasons for the reverts were that it is by no means indicating that they are the same series on the page. In fact, the edits I performed after his first wave to scrub TYBW off were actually to put even more emphasis on that. But to erase it like they aren't directly related as one linear story without any sort of actual marketing change (e.i. timeskip as we see from Dragon Ball Z and Naruto: Shippuden), when it's been shown to incorporate the same animation in flashbacks from the original series, and feature characters you otherwise would have no idea are (e.i. Arrancar and Fullbringer characters), would be to suggest that they can be jumped into as separate works, which is simply not true.

TYBW is clearly meant to be watched after finishing that series, and to suggest otherwise would be misleading readers. Nothing with how it is being presented as is right now suggests they are the same production line, just that they are one continuous immediate storyline. I also believe this is why TYBW cours are specifically referred to as parts instead of seasons by Viz Media. The only time I've seen the seasons notation be incorporated is when Japanese trailers used it in English as stylization. Everywhere else, the official Japanese social media specifically used cours only. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

In a nutshell: The literal only reason TYBW exists as a separate production line is simply because Studio Pierrot ran out of published manga material to adapt and did not want to make even more filler. To separate them entirely off the episode list article based only on that seems like undue weight to me. This is essentially my case for it. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)